Loading...
2002-09-04 - Plan Commission - Minutes Board or Commission: ❑ Plan Commission Document Type: 0 A e g nda 0 Minutes Meeting ate: 09/04/2002 Type of Meeting: ❑ Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING BUFFALO GROVE PLAN COMMISSION September 4, 2002 Noah's Landing townhomes—Request for change to Preliminary Plan Concerning the mix of dwelling unit types, Prairie Road/IL Route 22 Village Zoning Ordinance—Discussion of proposed B-6 Mixed Use District Chairman Ottenheimer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Village Council Chambers, Buffalo Grove Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. Commissioners present: Chairman Ottenheimer Mr. Samuels Ms. Bocek Ms. Kenski-Sroka Mr. Khan Mr. Teplinsky Mr. Billiter Commissioners absent: Mr. Smith Also present: Mr. Keith Jacobs, Jacobs Homes Mr. John Green, Groundwork, Ltd. Mr. Charles Johnson, Village Trustee Mr. Robert Pfeil, Village Planner Mr. Greg Summers, Associate Village Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES—None COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS—None NOAH'S LANDING TOWNHOMES —REQUEST FOR CHANGE TO PRELIMINARY PLAN CONCERNING THE MIX OF DWELLING UNIT TYPES, PRAIRIE ROAD/IL ROUTE 22 Mr. John Green summarized the original plan units noting that all of the B and C units have now been sold. He stated 13 of the 23 A units are sold. He stated they would like to make a minor change and make the A units that remain into B units and in doing so they would make some shifts to the building locations. He stated because of the success of the sales they have been able to sell out the other units before the underground work has gone in. If they change the unit they want to respace the buildings and that must be done now. He noted that once they got the approval of the Plan Commission they have three sets of buildings that have less than 24-foot spacing. The Village allows spacing to be down to 15 feet but Village ordinance is that if the spacing is less than 24 feet you cannot have windows on the sides of the units. That is another reason for making the changes now they can make the shifts so that all the buildings will have 24-foot spacing. Mr. Green stated they are requesting that the 10 remaining units be modified to B units. The Village Board referred the matter back to the Plan Commission for this revision. Mr. Green reviewed the changes noting if the adjustments are made on buildings 1 and 4, they would move the building 4 feet away from the sidestreet which will get them 24 feet between the units and increase the distance from the street at the main entry by 4 feet. If they then change unit 8 from an A to a B they would then be at 29 feet separation. If they were to change units 11 and 12, they would actually keep the distance they now have on unit 9 because it is 35 feet away from a side lot line. That would take the spacing between buildings to 28 feet. If they were to change building 12, they would shift the entire building 8 feet further north, adding all of the space in the side yard and still have 24 feet between units. They are also requesting to change unit 15 which will increase the side-to-rear separation of two adjacent building to be 4 feet to 5 feet larger than the minimum of 40 feet that now exists. Changing unit 25 provides more green space from the east of the building to the adjacent driveway serving the next building. Changing unit 37 would provide more open space between the end of the unit and the adjacent road. This opens up the visibility/access to the playground/activity area and changing unit 40 provides for a 24-foot separation between adjacent buildings and thereby provides for the opportunity to have side windows. None of the units along the east side or the south end of the pond would be affected. The least critical units for change are 1, 11, 37 and 44 since they would not involve driveway shifts. Commissioner Billiter stated it is his opinion that this will help the site by adding more green space, which is always a good thing. His concern is with buildings 22, 23 24 and 25 which will be a B, B, C and a B units. He asked how this would impact the elevations. He also noted his concern with the driveways, which seem like they would be a challenge and cause some congestion. While on the one hand there are more green space opportunities but on the other hand there is some congestion being created. Mr. Green stated that in no case would it bring the spacing between the unpaired driveways any closer because they are always changing an end unit only. The amount of the overlap from the edge of the driveway to the end of the building will be 9-10 feet instead of 13-14 feet. Mr. Green stated they have compared the elevations and presented drawings of the changes. He noted they have now been able to put the windowed bay on every B unit on every end. They will still have a total of 8 different unit combinations out of the 15 buildings. Commissioner Bocek noted most of the changes are very positive. However, she was concerned that exchanging elevations of unit A without windows with unit B elevations without windows causes a loss of character which existed on unit A. She asked if any of the character could be picked up. Mr. Green stated the one thing affected on the elevations is the loss of all the stone on the back. He suggested that on those units that are changed from an A unit to a B unit on the ends have stone elements added. The advantage on the sides is that he can do all of the glass bays, which is a significant advantage. Mr. Green stated they have not discontinued the marketing of A units. They are simply looking for the ability to change them to B units. Commissioner Khan asked if the water and sewer services are all stubbed at the curb at this time. Mr. Green stated no and noted they will start putting that in next week. They expect to be at the point where they are stubbing in about 3-4 weeks. Commissioner Samuels asked if would be possible to put another gable up in the rear in the B, B, C, B elevation. Mr. Green stated yes. Commissioner Samuels asked how the fireplaces are selling. Mr. Green stated only about one third of the units have them so far. Chairman Ottenheimer stated the majority of children will be living in the A unit with the master bedroom down. He stated he would like to hear from the school district 103 representative. He further noted he has a very had time approving a project when he is not sure what the project is going to be in term of A or B units. Mr. Green stated they would like the opportunity to do them all as B units but if any of the A units are sold in the 3-4 week interim they will be built as A's. Chairman Ottenheimer asked if there would be an impact on a certain portion of the units if an A unit. Mr. Green stated no. He noted if they are acknowledged as all potentially B units, it gives him some slide room because he can pick up almost 8 feet on some whereas he only needs 4 feet. Therefore if one of the units becomes an A unit he still has the 4 feet he needs. Mr. Green stated the least critical units are 11, 37 and 44. If these stay as A's he does not have an issue with the movements they are making. Chairman Ottenheimer asked why the B and C units sold faster. Mr. Green stated it was the cost. Commissioner Bocek asked if an additional window could be added in the living room on the B unit to break up the elevation on the ones that are converted from A units. Mr. Green stated he would have to add it on all of them. Mr. Joseph Jaeger, School District 103 representative, stated that if the A units are attracting more children than the B or C units the school board would have no problem with the changes. So far with 43 units they have picked up about 17 children which is what they thought they would get through the whole development of 53 units. Ms. Terry Moons of School District 125 stated the changes are reasonable and they will go along with them. Trustee Johnson stated part of the concern in referring the matter to the Plan Commission was to make sure they had the input of the school districts since they have been so concerned. Mr. Green stated their specific request would be in changing units 1, 4, 11, 12, 15, 25 and 40 to B units. They would then leave units 8, 37 and 44 as A units. In addition to that they would expand the gable on the rear side of the one elevation that was the B, C, B, B and they would do the stone on the back of the seven B units just outlined. Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Billiter to revise the preliminary plan to allow units 1, 4, 11, 12, 15, 25 and 40 to be converted from unit A to unit B with the proviso that the elevations be changed with the aforementioned stone and gables and building space be increased as outlined. Chairman Ottenheimer called for a vote on the motion and the vote was as follows: AYES: Samuels, Bocek, Kenski-Sroka, Khan, Teplinsky, Billiter, Ottenheimer NAPES: None ABSENT: Smith ABSTAIN: None The motion passed 7 to 0. VILLAGE ZONING ORDINANCE — DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED B-6 MIXED USE DISTRICT Mr. Pfeil stated the discussion should include an appropriate name for the new district, such as "B-6." He said that the Village Attorney has reviewed the draft text and no major concerns were indicated concerning the structure of the new district. The Village Attorney recommends that the district should be tied to the special use standards in the Zoning Ordinance, similar to the current B-3 District. The term "Planned District" should be included in the title of the district. Mr. Pfeil noted that Mr. Beechick of Hamilton Partners has also offered some comments. Some aspects of the proposed Riverwalk North development would not meet some of the standards in the proposed district. Some setback standards from public roads and some of the minimum acreage requirements would not be met by the proposed plan. Mr. Pfeil noted that the restaurant proposed for Riverwalk North does not necessarily have to be part of this mixed-use district. The restaurant parcel could be a B-3 district fronting on Milwaukee Avenue. The proposed hotel parcel is slightly less than 3 acres, but the parcel for the residential use is quite large since it includes all the stormwater detention area for the entire development. Mr. Pfeil pointed out that the Commission should consider the implications for the rest of the Village, especially the Milwaukee Avenue corridor, if a mixed-use district is created. The Commission may want to be more specific about where this district could be allowed. Chairman Ottenheimer stated he is not sure he would want to specify where this mixed use development could or could not be located because as the Villages ages there will be a need for more redevelopment. There could be good proposals for areas of the Village that are established, but in need of redevelopment. He further noted that service uses conjures up any number of possible uses, not just restaurant uses. Mr. Pfeil commented that the scale of the mixed-use district might not be appropriate in certain areas of the Village. This is very intense zoning and it would be out of character for many parts of the Village. This type of intense zoning needs to be linked to comprehensive planning for the Village to establish areas that are appropriate for its application. Commissioner Samuels stated he would not recommend that a zoning classification and standards are created and then have the first development to be proposed under those zoning standards have variations. He further noted he does not think a zoning ordinance should be created that necessarily just incorporates everything the developer is asking for. He stated he agrees to tying setbacks to heights is a good idea. He further noted it might be good to tie heights of structures or density to bonuses for additional green space for park areas and other facilities that are on the development. He noted it might be a good idea to focus in on the FAR. Commissioner Billiter stated it would be wise to include goals for the Village and setting up some guidelines on what is actually going to be achieved when you encourage this kind of development. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman Ottenheimer noted that the Plan Commission still has a vacancy. Trustee Johnson said that the Village Board has discussed filling the position and will try to make a decision within the next month. FUTURE AGENDA SCHEDULE Mr. Pfeil stated the next regular meeting would be September 18, 2002. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS—None STAFF REPORT—None NEW BUSINESS—None ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Kenski-Sroka, seconded by Commissioner Billiter and carried unanimously to adjourn. Chairman Ottenheimer adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fay Rubin, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: LESTER OTTENHEIMER, Chair